Posted
by
Zonk
on Saturday September 09, 2006 @03:07PM
from the it's-lonely dept.

SachiCALaw writes "It turns out that to use UnBox, the user has to download software from Amazon that contains a Windows service (ADVWindowsClientService.exe). Tom Merritt over at C|Net reports that the service tries to connect to the internet quite frequently. Even tweaking msconfig could not prevent it." From the article: "So, in summary, to be allowed the privilege of purchasing a video that I can't burn to DVD and can't watch on my iPod, I have to allow a program to hijack my start-up and force me to login to uninstall it? No way. Sorry, Amazon. I love a lot of what you do, but I will absolutely not recommend this service. Try again."

I'm don't think that they could do this and remain competitive.
Personally, I usually shop at Amazon.com for their prices. If it's lower, I buy, if not, I get in my car and drive out to BestBuy, MicroCenter, or if I'm desperate, WalMart. If Amazon raises their prices, I don't buy from them. Simple as that. More likely they'll find that they have to drop prices on their UnBox downloads.

I'm lost. Granted, going to the B&M can be inconvenient. I get that part, and I do agree. But that doesn't explain why there isn't discussion of other alternatives, such as other online DVD stores. Amazon isn't the only one. If you can pay at Amazon, you likely have the means to pay at any of the several dozen DVD sellers, many of them beat Amazon's prices for DVDs. And you get to keep the DVDs that play on seemingly nearly any entertainment device and nearly any computer without any intrusive sof

that's fine, there's still lots of places to buy things online other than Amazon. they're not going to sell out their DVD sales to all their competitors in that space just to capture the "omg, i have no car and i can't wait two days to watch this movie, so i'll download spyware" crowd.

I think that realistically, most people combine trips. For instance, if I wanted to get groceries, I would go to Wal*Mart and maybe check out their videos too. And I did similar things even when I rode the bus years ago.So I don't think it's that big a hardship to buy a video from a store, unless it's something obscure that I couldn't find any other way.

iTunes works because you can buy music much more cheaply than if you went to a store. I could buy a single song for $ 0.99 and that's something you just

i didn't own a car for the last 8 months and live in a major metropolitan area. it takes an hour to take a bus or train to the nearest bestbuy. there is no way to reach a target or walmart except for a taxi for the last 1/2 mile stretch. time is money, it got to the point where i didn't go anywhere but to work and ordered everything online. mass transit is seriously crippled in the us that it's only practical to use for work*if you don't believe me, try not using your car for a week.

See, that's not the way it works. There's no competition here; UnBox is for buying everything you want to watch on your Computer Machine. You're going to have to buy yourself the DVD to watch it on the TV machine. And to watch it on the iPod Gadget, you're going to have to buy it again. And circumventing any of these purchases is a crime.

Video DVDs have multiple audio tracks (aka, more production work to make them). Video (again, more work). And frequently, if not almost always, have more minutes of material than audio CDs, yet audio CDs often cost more than the video counterpart. And not just a couple of cents like the 12 monkeys example.

It's the reason Amazon has so many studios on board, while Apple will (reportedly) only have Disney next Tuesday. Steve Jobs wants to sell for only $9.99 or $12.99, while the studios wanted higher prices (yeah, I want to pay as much as a DVD for an online video version...right). Jobs wouldn't budge, so they went to Amazon. I'm sure the disaster of Amazon's service compared to the inevitable success of Apple's will put the ball in Jobs' court, and the other studios will come around.

well that's the question isn't it. Is the DRM in the player, in which case it could be made to work on Wine as long as all the OS hooks were present. Or is the DRM rooted in the OS. In which case it's unlikley Wine or Crossover would implement it. Which is it?

In order to download and view Digital Content using the Service, you will need to install the Unbox Video Player (the "Software") on an Authorized Device and agree to the Microsoft Software Supplemental License Terms set forth as an Addendum below these Terms of Use (the "Software License"). The Software may operate on your Authorized Device continuously for a variety of reasons, including the management of your Digital Content. The Software also will access the Internet in order to perform a number of functions including as described below:

a. Software Upgrades. The Software automatically checks for upgrades, but the Software will not automatically upgrade without your consent, except as provided herein. If you do not consent to an upgrade that we make subject to your consent, the Digital Content may no longer be viewed on your Authorized Device. You must keep the Software on your Authorized Device current in order to continue to use the Service. We may automatically upgrade the Software when we believe such upgrade is appropriate to comply with law, enforce this Agreement, or protect the rights, safety or property of Amazon, our content providers, users, or others.

b. Information Provided. Amazon respects your privacy, and the Software will not access computer files or other information on your computer that are not used by or otherwise related to the Service. Among other things, the Software will provide Amazon with information related to the Digital Content on your Authorized Device and your use of it and information regarding your Authorized Device and its interaction with the Service. This information will enable Amazon to manage rights associated with the Digital Content, allow Amazon to help you use the Service more effectively and otherwise help Amazon to enhance and improve the Service. For example, the Software may provide Amazon with information about the Digital Content from the Service on your Authorized Device, whether it has been deleted and whether it has been viewed. The Software may also provide Amazon with information about your Authorized Device's operating system, software, amount of available disk space and Internet connectivity, such as whether your computer or other device is available online. This information will, among other things, help us deliver Digital Content to you more efficiently and effectively. The Software may also provide Amazon with information about the transfer of Digital Content to portable devices to help us ensure compliance with our rules concerning portable devices.

c. Removal of Software. If you uninstall or otherwise remove the Software, your ability to view all Digital Content you have downloaded to the Authorized Device will immediately and automatically terminate and we reserve the right to delete all Digital Content from that Authorized Device without notice to you.

The Services are available only to customers located in the United States. If you are outside of the United States, you may not use the Services and you may not transfer Digital Content outside the United States. As used herein, "United States" refers to the 48 contiguous United States, the District of Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii.

So now if I download a movie and bring my laptop on a trip out of the country, then I'm breaking the terms of service. That's pretty draconian.

FWIW, I'd rip a DVD right in front of an MPAA rep. When he threatens to sue, I'd point at the interoperability clause in the DMCA, and point at the fair use clause in Copyright Law, as well as DVD advertisements which state that I OWN the DVD, along with various court precedents pertaining to the first sale doctrine. Providing I am not violating Copyright Law by distributing the content in violation of it, there isn't much they can do. There's not much they can do if I rip all of my DVDs to xvid to keep readily available on my HDD, and nothing they can do about my copying them to my PocketPC for mobile viewing.

Besides, I thought the problem with DeCSS was the distribution of it, not the use of it. That was the problem with the law; you were allowed to circumvent the protection for fair use, but you couldn't tell anyone else how to do it (e.g. distributing your program).

I am tired of seeing companies, whether it is open source or not, offering services that bury unforseen privacy violations within them. There are responsible programs like (on Windows) Winamp and Windows Media Player and even (on *IX) pine, which inform you that it is going to be sending usage information back to home base, with an option to decline such activity.

Some of the software is so sneaky as to masquerade as a legitimate SSL requirest, so even a network administrator has no clue whether or not the information coming out of their network does or does not contain proprietary information about the network's users--and you are left to the "trust us" language in the EULAs with no proof that the data being sent is benign info.

There's something that's neither strictly "personal" responsibility (the call for "personal responsibility" is often a form of blaming the victim) and simple whining: it's collective action. Despite its utopian, hippie-esque ring, it can mean a class action lawsuit, a public information campaign leading to a boycott or increased awareness of alternatives, advocating a change in public policy, or other activities. Standing up for "oneself" in this situation means just not buying it. Outside of anything else,

In this instance, personal responsibility = if you don't like it vote with your pocketbooks and use something else. There's no need for lawsuits that benefit no one but the lawyers.It comes down to this: Whining to the EFF about entertainment companies is stupid. There is no "right" to entertainment. Nothing forces you to buy, steal, or listen to/watch music or movies. If you don't like the way the companies are run, don't buy their products. You don't have to go whining demanding congressional action

If you don't like the way the companies are run, don't buy their products.

That's a statement I am so fucking sick of reading on this site. It would be applicable if the entertainment companies weren't pretty much the only game in town. But 99% of everything to do with media entertainment available is from them, so you have no damn choice but to deal with them. This "well you don't have to buy their products" line is bullshit, and over-used, dead tired bullshit at that.

That's a statement I am so fucking sick of reading on this site. It would be applicable if the entertainment companies weren't pretty much the only game in town. But 99% of everything to do with media entertainment available is from them, so you have no damn choice but to deal with them. This "well you don't have to buy their products" line is bullshit, and over-used, dead tired bullshit at that.

You absolutely have a choice, you have the option of not consuming mainstream media. It may not be a choice that you like, but it's a choice nonetheless. Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean the option isn't available to you.

It's obviously not a simple choice, to be sure. It's a tradeoff between two different interests, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Most people do decide to purchase mainstream media, they value access to that content over whatever money or rights they have to give up to get it, and they have the option to do so. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the fact that lots of people make a particular choice means it's the only choice anyone could possibly make, though.

You and fotbr are exactly right. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to make any sacrifices whatsoever and instead prefer to whine about it incessantly. I'm so sick of hearing people say that they don't have a choice. I stopped watching TV and mainstream movies completely just over a year ago and there are plenty of alternative forms of entertainment to keep me amused.

I have no problems with people who choose to partake in these forms of entertainment, however, I do have a problem with people who whine constantly about having no choice in the matter. Especially those who advocate that the government or groups like the EFF should step in and force the media companies to deliver the content in a manner that they personally prefer.

No, they're not critical to life, but if you want to watch a movie or listen to music, you have to deal with them. Are there human beings who can see and hear who never want to watch a movie or listen to music if they possibly can? Have fun finding some of them.

That statement really is not the issue. IF people/companies/whomever decides to provide entertainment, they do so under some very specific conditions, namely, the ones laid out in copyright law.

Copyright law was created NOT to benefit content creators (artists, musicians, etc.) but to benefit society as a whole - copyright is merely a ploy to encourage creation by allowing the creators to benefit from their work for a limited time and only applies to the right to repr

If only fewer people decided they needed special interest groups to file class-action lawsuits that only benefit the lawyers. And yes, the EFF falls into that category. Even when they win class-action lawsuits, they don't have a real impact on companies, and the indiviual consumer doesn't benefit (oh, a voucher for another crappy cd, thank goodness the EFF stood up for me) and the ONLY people who gain anything are the lawyers.If you don't like the way some software works, fine, don't use it. NOTHING forc

Most people aren't lawyers, so they can't start up the necessary arguments in courts to get things like this changed. Most people would hire a lawyer (if affordable); even lawyers would hire other lawyers to work for a personal case (e.g. they're the defendant; lawyers don't represent themselves in a court of law due to human nature).

You don't need Congress to persuade you to not choose to run spyware. A little self-discipline will be quite enough.

Say all you want about the inevitability of DRM and the media companies' requirements for it, but one thing is for sure: DRM-compliant software is always (there has never been an exception) intended to serve someone other than the user. You can candycoat this ugly fact all you want, but if you choose to run a proprietary player because you want to watch some DRM content, you accept that you

These companies typically lose money because the consumer realizes that their products aren't worth the price. Also, any bill related to this would have to be far too technical for congress to wrap its head around, resulting in something either ineffective or harmful.

Oh give me a break. If you don't like what it's doing -- then don't use it. It's not doing anything better or worse than 99.9% of all apps worldwide. Amazon is not out to "get you". I'm getting pregressively sicker of the whining "big brother is watching me" rehetoric. Don't like it - then don't play. But the benefits outweigh the cons. The material I've donwloaded from Unbox are full screen, crisp, great sound and with me in 5 mins or so. *I* for one like that and really don't care if anyone knows that I'

Lots of spyware requires a net connection to uninstall. This is just more spyware. It won't be long before Windows itself requires a net connection to run. WGA is mighty close to that. Claria(or whatever they call themselves now) is alive and well. People who buy new machines won't notice and won't care. It's all good news for the phisherman...who will be hanging out at your local landfill where your machine will end up when you get tired of waiting ten minutes for it to finish booting up. For now the best way to protect your system is to use a live CD.

Let this be the official thread where we post our opinions [kibbee.ca] that we've written in our blogs. But summing it up, my opinions are pretty much the same as yours, plus terms of service that allow them to delete the movies and discontinue the services at anytime.

Amazon is clearly catering to a single party -- motion picture copyright holders.

It's intersting that someone with the nick name, "gnu-sucks" would complain about non free software problems. Yes, the "single party" in this case is the MPA. In other cases it's M$ or the highest bidder. That's the way non most non free software works. It's non free because the author wants you to do as they say in one way or another. As lots of companies, such as IBM, have been making lots of money selling and servici

My slashdot username is simply to point out that there are other OSS licenses. I dig gnu, but it has its share of shortcomings.

Also, IBM doesn't make money selling free software. They make money installing it, and coming up with creative solutions. Not to mention support. By proxy, free software has made them some money for sure. But not the sale directly.

re-reading your comment, twitter, I have to reply again...That's the way non most non free software works. It's non free because the author wants you to do as they say in one way or another

If you consider gnu gpl software to be 'free software', by your reasoning, than you're seriously mistaken. GPL licensed works have very specific license requirements. If I'm to distribute my GPL'd app, you better believe it absolutely has to include the source code. And, if anyone wants to use it for their own purposes, t

If I'm to distribute my GPL'd app, you better believe it absolutely has to include the source code. And, if anyone wants to use it for their own purposes, their works have to be covered by the same license. And I have to include an obvious copy of the GPL license.

Yes, if you distribute someone else's software you have to pass on the same rights you received. That has nothing to do with your own software, for which you can use whatever license you please. If you want to distribute modified GPL'd softwar

I do not want Bill Gates or anyone else using my work to make anyone else check a box saying "I agree" to not helping their neighbor.

Uhh... ever install anything that's GPL or similar? You almost always have to click "I Agree" to something. As for not helping your neighbor, how about considering that, from a purely commercial point of view, if a company is considering using your source code, it might help them not to reveal that they do, much less their contributions to the code. And if you consider the pla

GPL is specifically worded such that the software is free, and remains free. With the BSD license, someone else can take your source code, make a few changes, and rerelease it as their own in a closed format, making the code essentially non-free. I do see your point about the fact that restrictions exist meaning that you are not free to do with the code as you please. However I don't think that's what free software is about. I believe that free software is about having the source code open, and keeping it

Seriously, there is no way any movie studio in the current climate would even consider licensing material for Amazon to run a service like this without some fairly draconian restrictions like "must do everything in its power to prevent piracy; if that means phoning home every 20 minutes so be it".

However, my firewall warned me that a Windows service (ADVWindowsClientService.exe) was trying to connect to the Net.

Hmm...

Either he didn't untick the appropriate box in the "Services" tab of msconfig (not recommended as a solution) or he didn't go into the control panel (or run services.msc) and change the 'Startup Type' from "Automatic" to "Manual"

My guess is he unticked a box in the "Startup" tab of msconfig and expected that to solve the problem. Unless of course, the Amazon program didn't really instal

I noticed that the Amazon player had launched itself. Annoying. I looked in the program for a preference to stop it from launching itself, and there was none. Typical. So I went to msconfig and unchecked Amazon Unbox so that it would definitely not launch itself at start-up. When I rebooted, it was no longer there. However, my firewall warned me that a Windows service (ADVWindowsClientService.exe) was trying to connect to the Net. I clicked More Info in the firewall alert and found it was Amazon Unbox.

As a Debian user, all of the above is so much meaningless mumbo jumbo to me, but the details are unimportant. It did not do what he wanted it to do despite great effort. He finally figured out that it would pretend to uninstall itself if he allowed the still loaded client unrestricted access to the internet. Without a system audit from an independent operating system, there's no telling if it finally did what he wanted but ultimately the service failed him: this is not a good way to watch movies.

It's crap like that that keeps me away from non free software and non free media. I'm not going to give up control of the machine that gives me my mail and news just to hear a song or watch a movie. It's bad enough that the greed heads force me to watch adverts on rented movies when I play them through a set top box, bad enough for me to one day build a mythTV box [slashdot.org]. But install spyware on my normal computer or gateway? You have to be kidding.

I think a good analogy would be that UnBox added itself to runlevel 2's/etc/rc2.d, and it added itself to your Autostart directory (wherever that may be depending on your desktop environment). He removed it from Autostart, but the daemon was still running.

As a Debian user, all of the above is so much meaningless mumbo jumbo to me, but the details are unimportant. It did not do what he wanted it to do despite great effort.

As a windows user, I find much of the commentary on/. about *nix to be meaningless mumbo jumbo... but that doesn't change the fact that my (or your) imitations have no relevance at all to the discussion at hand.

My point was that the author of TFA knew enough to try and use msconfig, but not enough to see if there was an Amazon service runni

Well at least the author of the story managed to get the video to play. I downloaded "The Enterprise Incident" and have not successfully been able to playback the episode in its entirety. At the 4:12 mark, the window goes black and the progress bar goes to the beginning. Amazon "support" has not been helpful at all. A Motley fool poster seems to have a simlilar problem [fool.com]. The Progress Bar doesn't work to jump to any point in the video.

The Unbox player may not be necessary to play back videos purchased through Amazon. It might just be a "wrapper" around WMP. I was able to play back the episode directly through Windows Media Player, and it stops at the 4:12 mark as well, but with an error message: "Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The Player might not support the file type or might not support the codec that was used to compress the file." Which is kind of an odd error to get in the middle of playback.

Shouldn't you download the file in small chunks, each with their own SHA1SUM, to ensure that the entire file isn't corrupted and you don't have to download the entire file (2 gigs) again, just because there's a flipped bit in the file?

Yeah, I know this is the way bittorrent works, and the way ed2k worked before that. I'm not trying to pretend I invented the idea. I was just pointing out that it would be a good idea from unbox to use in their system. Especially when you are downloading 2 Gig files.

Spyware, adware, DRM tools, exploits, viruses, worms, trojans, rootkits, etc.... I LOVE THEM. Why? Because malware continues to keep the masses informed about the dangers of software and that nobody... not even big companies (e.g. Sony, Microsoft) should be trusted to release "good" software let alone "bug free" software. The more people get burned by malware, the more likely they are too research a piece of software before they install it.
Keep the malware coming!

Most of the public are sheep and will grudgingly accept malware as 'normal',

I don't know what kind of "public" you live around, but most of the "normal," "non geek" population I know hates that shit. They will put up with CSS on a DVD, because it works transparently and doesn't burden them. However, when it comes to malware or adware - or copy protection that requires jumping through hoops, nobody wants that. You don't have to be "elite" to see that. I think this is more about your superiority complex than

Removal of Software. If you uninstall or otherwise remove the Software, your ability to view all Digital Content you have downloaded to the Authorized Device will immediately and automatically terminate and we reserve the right to delete all Digital Content from that Authorized Device without notice to you.

I tried to uninstall the damn thing repeatedly and it always hung "checking for a valid installation" or somesuch. I eventually had to manually kill all the services, manually delete all the files and manually delete all the Amazon references in the registry.

Though a broken uninstall is a pretty typical 1.0 bug. But not allowing it to be removed from the startup list (the reason I was trying to uninstall in the first place) is unforgivable.

This article got me thinking - how does iTunes work with regards to authorizing a computer to play purchased music?

Let's say I hook a computer up to my network, copy some music to it, authorize it, and then remove it from the network so it no longer has access to the Internet. I assume at some point iTunes will want to phone home to double-check that the computer in question is still authorized to play those tracks, or that you haven't reached any burning limits?

I'm no expert but I don't see why iTunes has to phone to check authorisation.you can authorise 5 computers simultaneously. you want to addd a 6th then you need to deauthorise one of them online (I don't think it has to be done from the computer itself but it's easier that way).

so once it's authorised for an account, a computer is valid for all music bought with that account until you say otherwise. so why bother checking?

burn limits is the only possibilty but I would assume that is done locally in the softw

you can authorise 5 computers simultaneously. you want to add a 6th then you need to deauthorise one of them online (I don't think it has to be done from the computer itself but it's easier that way).

Yeah, that's the part I was wondering about. Let's say I go into iTunes and tell it to deauthorize all computers. There has to be some sort of communication between iTunes on the other computers and the iTMS for it to be told that it's been deauthorized. Otherwise, someone could theoretically authorize five

(I don't think it has to be done from the computer itself but it's easier that way).

You answered yourself - it does have to phone home. Or else you could just deactivate computer x from computer y, ad infinitum, and have your music collection available on hundreds of PCs, because iTunes wouldn't phone home to confirm activation status.

If it's sending performamnce stats or checking / updating license status, that's one thing.If it's sending keylogger logs, credit card numbers and health records it's another.I'm pretty sure it's not doing any of those things, but is this an argument about substance or principle?iTunes phones home when I authorize / deauthorize a machine. I don't have reason to suspect Evildoing whrn it does.

"If it's sending performance stats...'
NO. It is never OK for the software to connect to the internet without informed consent of the OWNER of the computer. That's where security problems start - an app that isn't talking over the internet is very unlikely to get hijacked. An app that is using internet access without the computer owner's knowledge or consent is far,far more likely to be attacked.
Again, NO. It is never OK for someone to use MY computer to analyze the performance of THEIR software, unles

So let's get past the CAPS and absolutes."an app that isn't talking over the internet is very unlikely to get hijacked."

Vulnerabilities aren't generally found by owners / end users as a result of knowing what apps are using their network connection. They're found by security wonks analyzing behavior and traffic. Are there instances where a legit app was found by an end user to house a vulnerability that did actual damage before being discovered and patched? Certainly not this one - reports have it as a n

I haven't shopped at Amazon since they "unilaterally changed" ("violated") their privacy policy to divulge my personal info they required I store with them. Of course I changed it all before I notified them it was unacceptable, and of course they ignored me (and doubtless thousands of others). Now this bullshit, from the people who patented one-click shopping.Where's the online aggregation of independent booksellers, getting Amazon's economies of scale but retaining their individual connection to the intere

This should be reported to StopBadware.org [stopbadware.org]. It appears to violate Guideline G ("An application must permit end users to uninstall it (in the customary place the applicable operating system has designated for adding or removing programs, e.g., the Add/Remove Programs control panel in Windows) in a straightforward manner, without undue effort or a high degree of technical skill.") and Guideline E ("Software Which Transmits Data To Unknown Parties").

The great thing about StopBadware is that their guidelines define some actions as making software "badware" despite any disclaimers or EULA terms. "Hard to uninstall" software is always "badware", no matter what the EULA says.

Sadly, most people (I'll bet upward of 80-90%) won't know, wouldn't understand, or wouldn't care. And so if the service is okay and the price is okay and it's convenient enough, most people will be dumb enough to use it.

Look at spam. There are so damn many idiots out there that you can make money simply spamming people.

please correct me if I'm wrong but other then the intial authrorization, I think the only phone home that itunes does is to plug things for the mini-store advertisments at the bottom of the page. ANd you can turn that off. I don't think it runs services that phone hope besides the application itself. Perhaps on windows it's different than on macs?

I don't believe that the services that iTunes install phone home (although I could be wrong), but iTunes does indeed install a service that runs all the time (ie whether you're using iTunes or not). This is the "iPodService", that is described as being "iPod hardware management services". If you stop it, iTunes restarts it. If you set it to disabled then run iTunes as an admin, it sets it back to manual and starts it. At install time, it's set to automatic - ie it runs when Windows starts.I wouldn't mind, b

I did as you suggested, as I am always interested in what is going on with my network connections. I see the iPodService.exe binary running, and the page faults delta field will flash 117 or 119 every 3-5 seconds like clockwork.What I didn't see was my firewall having an entry for allowed programs. Maybe it backdoored in with the iTunes.exe or iTunesHelper.exe, but I doubt it. In fact, I looked at the active applications, and while the iPodService.exe was flickering, my firewall reported no traffic. Eve

iTunesHelper isn't a "useless service." It simply waits for an iPod to be plugged in, after which it starts up iTunes and syncs your tracks. There's no "phone home activity," and you shouldn't be surprised it messes things up when you stop it manually. Are you actually surprised that when you messed with an iTunes background service, it affected the app's functionality?

You don't give specifics for any of your other complaints, so I can only assume you're just bitchin' and whinin' about nothin'. Furthermore, you claim your experience with iTunes resembles the Amazon Unbox experience described in the article. So you're saying you weren't able to play a video without messing with the progress bar, iTunes started up automatically, and you had problems uninstalling the application? Or were you just making a meaningless comparison as an excuse to vaguely bitch about iTunes?

Be aware that the Windows OS provides hooks to run programs when devices are attached, so there's no reason for a device vendor to have a program always running in memory waiting for the device to be attached.

The reason they put "iTunesHelper" in memory at all times is merely to make their program appear to load faster.

I think if it wasn't there, Windows would treat it as a standard mass-storage devic0e (with regards to the initial plug-in, as it does anyways while it's connected). And instead of just loading iTunes as you'd expect it to, you'd get that stupid menu of "You've got music on here, what the hell should I do?". But by and large, you're probably right - I'm sure Apple could come up with a workaround for something that silly.at grandparent/ggp/whatever generation of iTunes hater:Anyone complaining about that i

Let me be more clear: Using the correct registry entries, you can make any application run when your particular device is connected, regardless of whether or not it is a "mass storage device". I know this, because I have done this for devices my company makes. It's not a "workaround". It's the Windows mechanism for detecting and dealing with devices. Sitting in memory all the time to do the same thing is the hackish workaround.

The issue isn't that a particular program takes "just a little" memory. It's that every goddamn application vendor takes "just a little memory" and "only one tray icon", etc, etc. It's a tragedy of the commons scenario that files up everyone's machine. Still, if you at least give the user control, that's not so bad. When, like unbox, you don't allow the user to say "no, I don't want you to run every time I boot", it sucks.

Yes, because obviously all movies are based on books.It's probably true that most movie adaptations of books can be proven to be worse than the book, since telling a compelling story in a movie is completely different than telling a compelling story in a book, and very few people, or even teams, can do both well, but offering up that all movies are based on books is a bit too strong for me. Some of my favorite movies are those that weren't books to begin with, like the Matrix trilogy and the Austin Powers t

Did you expected other outcome? When you sign into new service - just to find the same old faces??

Since when we have iTMS? 3? 4 years now? Everybody screamed (and still screams) that service is expensive and restrictive. M$/friends came in. And what? New service - albeit cheaper - is even more restrictive.

People expected competition - especially after so many years. And better service. But thanks to DMCA, RIAA/MPAA got power to manipulate the services and slice markets as they wish - to end result to

How would you block outgoing traffic on common household routers such as Linksys WRT(forgotthenumber) to this address?

My guess is, if it couldn't get an outgoing connection it would simpy refuse to play the movie (at best), or simply delete everything you bought (at worst) if it decided you had somehow violated the license.